Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.lang.java.programmer > #26150

Re: Java vs C++

Show all headers | View raw

On 02/05/2011 06:15 AM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
> In the beginning, Java was supposed to be a much simpler language than C++,
> in some sense leaving out all the unnecessary complications, while keeping
> the worthwhile parts.
>
> This PDF copy of “The Java Language Specification”, 3rd Edition, that I’m
> currently reading, has 684 pages. By comparison, the paper copy of “The C++
> Standard” on my bookshelf has 782 numbered pages. As you can see, Java is no
> longer that far off C++ in complexity.

My copy of the C++0x draft reference standard, i.e. the copy sent out 
for a ballot by national bodies, consisted of no fewer than 1300 
numbered pages. Also take into consideration the fact that the C++ 
standard does not try to pin stuff down into unambiguous interoperable 
statements, e.g., a precise size definition for size_t. Java, on the 
other hand, goes so far as to fully define the language character set, a 
longish, detailed, accessible expose on the threading memory model that 
takes up 30 pages, while C++ spends 3 pages on it and still leaves me 
wondering what memory is guaranteed to be visible after certain operations.

So 684 pages of well-written, easily-understood text is not nearly as 
complex as 1300 pages of dense, example-lacking specification text. 
Maybe that's why popular C++ compilers have many more compatibility 
problems than popular Java compilers?

Your statement is not up to date.

> Most of that complexity seems to be caused by the addition of generics to
> Java. This was something that C++ had from the beginning. It was one of the
> unnecessary complications that Java left out to start with. But now they’ve
> changed their minds, and put it back in. But since they need to be backward-
> compatible with existing code, they’ve had to add extra complications that
> C++ never had to deal with.

You sir have probably never met the full pain of template 
metaprogramming. Indeed, templates is probably the single least 
well-supported thing in C++.

-- 
Beware of bugs in the above code; I have only proved it correct, not 
tried it. -- Donald E. Knuth

Back to comp.lang.java.programmer | Previous | Next — Next in thread | Find similar

Thread

Re: Java vs C++ Joshua Cranmer <Pidgeot18@verizon.invalid> - 2011-02-05 10:49 -0500
  Re: Java vs C++ Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2011-02-07 22:09 -0500
  Re: Java vs C++ Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@geek-central.gen.new_zealand> - 2011-02-08 15:57 +1300

csiph-web